coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant is a Moldovan incorporated company based in Chişinău.
6.  Moldovahidromaş (M.) was a State-owned company which owned a subsidiary Hidrotehnica (H.). In 1992 H.’s staff attempted to create a separate company on the basis of H.’s assets. The contract for the creation of H. was eventually annulled by a final court judgment of 22-23 October 1992. M. retained ownership of H. as a result.
7.  The applicant company was created as a result of the privatisation of M. in 1994 and thereafter. During the privatisation, the new owners bought the entire company from the State, including its subsidiary H.
8.  In 2002 the Prosecutor General, at the request of H.’s staff, asked for annulment of the final judgment of 22-23 October 1992. On 24 April and 24 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice annulled that judgment and ordered the registration of H. as an independent company.
9.  Relying on the Court’s judgment of 27 February 2007, the applicant company requested annulment of the judgments of 24 April and 24 July 2003. On 19 July and 2 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice annulled those two judgments, reinstating the applicant company in its rights. On 8 August 2007 the State Registration Chamber made changes to the State registry of companies and issued the applicant company a certificate, confirming its ownership of its subsidiary SA Hidrotehnica.
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Omsk.
7.  In May 2000 the applicant lent a sum of money to a private person, Mr M. The amount of the debt was linked to the exchange rate of the United States dollar. Mr M. failed to repay the full amount in due time, and on 19 April 2001 the applicant brought a civil action against him. The applicant sought to recover 141,800 Russian roubles (RUB) on account of the outstanding debt, plus statutory interest for the period of delay (проценты за неисполнение денежного обязательства). The amount of statutory interest was calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia.
8.  In the domestic proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer. Mr M., the defendant, claimed that he had returned RUB 45,000 to the applicant. However, he acknowledged the remainder of the principal debt, and accepted the calculations of statutory interest.
9.  On 15 January 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of Omsk partially granted the applicant’s claim. The court found that a part of the debt (RUB 45,000) had already been paid to the applicant. Given the exchange rate of the United States dollar at that moment, the court awarded the applicant RUB 106,500 (equivalent to 3,970 euros (EUR)) on account of the outstanding debt, plus RUB 34,611 (equivalent to EUR 1,290) as statutory interest under Article 395 of the Civil Code for 491 days of delay in paying the outstanding debt. To calculate the interest the court applied the annual refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia, which amounted to 25% at the time.
10.  The applicant appealed. In the points of appeal he contested the finding of the first-instance court that a part of the principal debt had been returned to him.
11.  On 27 February 2002 the Omsk Regional Court examined the appeal and dismissed it. The issue of statutory interest was not raised by the parties during the appeal proceedings. However, the court proprio motu reduced the amount of statutory interest awarded to RUB 10,000 (EUR 373), stating as follows:
“In addition to the principal debt the court ordered recovery of statutory interest, in accordance with Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, in the opinion of the court of appeal, the amount of interest – 34,611 roubles 44 kopeks – is disproportionate to the consequences of the breach of the obligation and is excessive.
Consequently, the appeal court (кассационная инстанция) deems it necessary, pursuant to Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to reduce the amount of the penalty to 10,000 roubles.”
The overall amount awarded to the applicant was therefore reduced to RUB 116,500. That decision became final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, the Donetsk Region.
5.  On 30 June 1998 the Novogrodivka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 2,550[1] against the Rosiya coal-mine (a State-owned enterprise) by way of compensation for delays in the payment of his occupational disease benefits. On 10 July 1998 the judgment became final and was sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.
6.  On 20 February 2003 the City Court rejected the applicant’s further claim against the same coal-mine in December 2002. On 5 May 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 21 Mai 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.
7.  In early 2004 the applicant complained to the City Court about the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity. On 30 April 2004 the City Court rejected the applicant’s complaint stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the Bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the June 1998 judgment, and that its non-enforcement was due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by the decision of 25 February 2003 of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy (which controlled 100% of the Rosiya coal-mine) to wind up the enterprise and to transfer its assets to the Selidovvugillya State Company. The latter entity was designated as the judgment debtor by decision of the City Court of 12 December 2003.
8.  On 25 November 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full.
4.  The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Mykolayovych Nadtochiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and resides in the city of Chernigiv, Ukraine.
5.  On 21 February 2000 the applicant brought a car (Audi-100) registered in Lithuania into the customs territory of Ukraine. When crossing the border he undertook an obligation to re-export the car before 21 February 2001.
6.  On 25 September 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
7.  On 15 December 2000 the applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for murder.
8.  On 5 June 2002, in the applicant’s absence, the Chernigiv Customs Office drew up a report on an infringement of customs regulations due to the applicant’s failure to bring the above car outside the customs territory of Ukraine (section 113 of the Customs Code). In the report, the Customs Office indicated the applicant’s place of detention.
9.  On 17 July 2002 the Customs Office sent the applicant’s case to the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv. In the covering letter they requested the court to consider the issue of the applicant’s liability for a violation of section 112 of the Customs Code (loss of goods placed under customs control).
10.  On 12 August 2002 the court considered the case in the applicant’s absence. The court found the applicant guilty of having failed to re-export the car and of having lost it in violation of section 112 of the Customs Code. The court ordered the confiscation of the vehicle, but given that the car’s location was unknown, it replaced the confiscation with payment of UAH 9,833.57 (about EUR 1,525.15) which corresponded to the value of the car, in accordance with section 149 § 3 of the Customs Code. In its decision, the court also indicated the applicant’s actual place of detention and noted that the applicant had not expressed a wish to be present at the court’s hearing, even though a notification about the time and place of the hearing had been sent to him. However, according to an information letter by the Deputy Head of the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences (Державний департамент України з питань виконання покарань) in reply to the Government Agent’s request, the applicant’s prison file contained no evidence that the applicant had received any summons to or notification about the above proceedings, while they were pending.
11.  The applicant was informed about the above court decision by the prison administration, which received a copy of the decision on 23 August 2002.
12.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant was released on probation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lived in Novogrodivka.
5.  On 2 April 1999 the Novogrodivka City Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,753[1] in salary arrears and compensation for delay in payment of salary against the Novogrodivska coal-mine (a State-owned enterprise).
6.  The applicant was unsuccessful in the proceedings against the State Bailiff Service for in respect of its allegedly unlawful inactivity.
7.  On 24 February 2004 the Novogrodivka City Department of the State Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the Novogrodivska coal-mine had been replaced by the Selydivvugillya State Company in the enforcement proceedings.
8.  As of 26 October 2004, the applicant had received UAH 1,530[2] out of the total award of UAH 1,753.
9.  In August 2005 Mrs Khokhlova informed the Court that after the case had been communicated to the respondent Government she had received the remainder of the sum.
4.  Mrs Iryna Mykhaylivna Petrova (“the first applicant”) was born in 1960. Mrs Olena Saveliyivna Chornobryvets (Zhuravlyova) (“the second applicant”) was born in 1963. Both applicants are judges of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal and live in Kirovograd.
5.  In November 2002 the applicants lodged claims with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears and life-long judicial benefits (long-service bonus and welfare benefits).
6.  On 16 December 2002 the court allowed the applicants’ claims and ordered the Ministry of Finances and the State Treasury of Ukraine to pay the applicants, respectively, UAH 6,529.03 and UAH 8,459.36.
7.  On 9 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final.
8.  On 11 August 2003 the Bailiffs’ Office of the Pechersky District of Kyiv informed the applicants that they had to address the State Treasury of Ukraine directly.
9.  On 26 November and 19 December 2003 the State Treasury informed the applicants that there were no funds available in the State budget to enforce the judgment of 16 December 2002.
10.  On 5 November 2004 the applicants received the sums awarded to them by the judgment of 16 December 2002.
4.  On 30 July 1999 the Sevastopil Military Court (Військовий суд Севастопільського гарнізону) ordered the Military Unit A-3009 (Військова частина А-3009) to pay the applicant, a retired officer, 1,599.42 hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation for his uniform. This judgment was not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.
5.  On numerous occasions the bailiffs informed the applicant that they were unable to enforce the judgment on account of the lack of budgetary allocations.
6.  On 17 May 2005 the judgment debt was paid to the applicant.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Nakhimovsky District Court of Sevastopil (Нахімовський районний суд м. Севастополя) seeking indexation of the award, which was due to him under the judgment of 30 July 1999, default interest and non-pecuniary damage on account of the delay in payment.
8.  On 10 October 2006 the court awarded the applicant UAH 1,375.50 in indexation of the judgment award and dismissed the remainder of his claims. This judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt. As of August 2007 this judgment remained unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. At the time of her application to the Court, she was incarcerated in the Kartal Special Type Prison.
5.  On 4 February 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Sol (Devrimci Sol – Revolutionary Left).
6.  On 16 February 1995 the applicant was detained on remand.
7.  On 21 February 1995 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and charged her with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
8.  On 28 April 1995 the Second Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing in the case (case no.1995/76).
9.  On 31 October 1995 the first-instance court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial. However, the applicant was not released since on 9 October 1995 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court had filed a new bill of indictment which resulted in a second case against the applicant before the First Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court (case no. 1995/348). The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the Criminal Code.
10.  On 3 September 1996 these two cases were joined under case no. 1995/348 before the First Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court.
11.  The applicant requested to be released pending trial at various times before the trial courts. The courts dismissed her requests either without giving any reason or having regard to the nature of the offence, the content of the case file and the state of evidence.
12.  On 31 October 2002 the First Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court once again dismissed the applicant’s request for release pending trial.
13.  On 4 November 2002 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 31 October 2002.
14.  On the same day the Second Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court dismissed her request.
15.  On 18 February 2003 the first-instance court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.
16.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, state security courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was thereby transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
5.  The applicant company is a Turkish company specialising in international highway transportation.
6.  On 1 June 1992 at Trieste port the Italian police discovered thirty kilograms of heroin stashed in a lorry which had been hired by the applicant company for the purpose of transporting walnut logs from Turkey to Italy. The driver of the vehicle escaped. As soon as they found out about the incident the applicant company informed the Istanbul Police Headquarters and submitted all the documents in their possession concerning the transportation.
7.  On 31 December 1992 the applicant company’s licence for international highway transportation was extended until 31 December 1994.
8.  On 23 June 1994 the Ministry of Transport (“the Ministry”) revoked the applicant company’s licence pursuant to Article 53 (g) of International Highway Transportation Regulations, on account of the incident in Italy.
9.  On 12 July 1994 the applicant company brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court (“the Administrative Court”) and requested the annulment of the Ministry’s decision of 23 June 1994. It also requested the Administrative Court to grant an interim decision to suspend the execution of the Ministry’s decision.
10.  The Ministry submitted written defence arguments, together with a number of supporting documents, to the Administrative Court on 12 August 1994. The Administrative Court forwarded the Ministry’s written defence arguments to the applicant company. The documents attached to the Ministry’s written defence arguments, however, were not forwarded to the applicant company but were placed in the case file of the Administrative Court.
11.  On 31 August 1994 the applicant company submitted observations in response to those of the Ministry. In their observations the lawyers for the applicant company referred to a number of documents which had been appended to the Ministry’s written defence arguments of 12 August 1994 but which had not been communicated to them.
12.  The applicant company’s request for the interim measure was refused by the Administrative Court on 14 September 1994.
13.  On 13 April 1995 the Administrative Court dismissed the case. In the proceedings the applicant company had submitted that the drug trafficking had been carried out by the driver of the hired vehicle and that the company could not, therefore, be held responsible for the driver’s actions. In its decision the Administrative Court held, inter alia, that since the impugned transportation had been undertaken by the applicant company under its licence, it was responsible for the transportation and therefore the Ministry had acted lawfully when revoking the licence.
14.  An appeal lodged by the applicant company on 13 October 1995 was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 8 October 1997.
15.  On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant company’s request of 6 February 1998 for a rectification of the decision. That decision was served on the applicant company on 11 December 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Antalya.
5.  On 23 March 1993 a certain H.I. lodged a criminal complaint with the Marmaris public prosecutor against the applicant and a certain S.K., accusing them of forging a bond. The prosecutor initiated an investigation and questioned the applicant on 17 May 1993.
6.  Once the preliminary investigation was completed and the necessary evidence was obtained, a prosecutor in Ankara filed an indictment with the Ankara Assize Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) on 21 April 1995 and requested that the applicant and S.K. be punished in accordance with Article 342 § 1 of the Criminal Code for the offence of forgery.
7.  Thirteen hearings were held by the trial court between 1 May 1995 and 12 September 1997 in the absence of the applicant. At each of these hearings the trial court noted the authorities’ failure to locate the applicant’s address. According to the applicant, the reason for his absence from those hearings was that he had not been informed about the trial. On 13 May 1996 the applicant’s co-accused S.K. was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence. The trial court decided to continue the proceedings against the applicant.
8.  A lawyer representing the applicant attended the 14th hearing on 21 November 1997 but, as the applicant was unable to pay his fees, the lawyer discontinued representing him. On 26 March 1998 the authorities were able to find the applicant and question him. In the course of the questioning the applicant denied the accusations against him. He attended the 18th hearing, held on 28 May 1998.
9.  During the 19th hearing, held on 22 June 1998, the trial court acquitted the applicant for lack of sufficient evidence. On 16 September 1998 the public prosecutor appealed against the acquittal. On 11 November 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision and referred the case to the trial court for a new trial.
10.  On 11 April 2000, during its first hearing in the new trial, the trial court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 22 October 2001 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to the Court of Cassation. These observations were not communicated to the applicant. On 13 February 2002, after having held a hearing, the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court’s decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Łódź.
5.  On 19 January 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted burglary and assault causing bodily harm.
6.  On 21 January 2004 the Sieradz District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant was released from detention on 8 July 2004.
7.  On 20 September 2004 the Sieradz District Court acquitted the applicant of attempted burglary and convicted him of assault. It sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 8 December 2004 the Sieradz Regional Court upheld the District Court judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal.
9.  On 16 August 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
10.  It transpires from the case file that in the period from 12 June 2006 to at least 4 July 2006 the applicant was again remanded in custody in connection with another set of criminal proceedings against him.
11.  On 12 June 2006 the applicant sent a request for an application form to the Court. On 29 June 2006 the Court received his request.
12.  On 4 July 2006 the Court sent a letter to the applicant containing a copy of the Convention, an application form and two information sheets. The envelope from this letter bears a stamp marked “censored”. The envelope also bears two stamps of the Łódź Detention Centre with the dates 14 July 2006 and 21 July 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 13 August 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The person responsible for the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 29 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 14,330,442 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (approximately 62,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
8.  Between 1 July 1998 and 18 April 2000 the applicant made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing.
9.  Between 20 October 1999 and 23 September 2002 he lodged eleven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
10.  On 21 September 2000 the court appointed four medical experts to prepare expert reports in the case.
11.  Three hearings were held between 21 September 2000 and 17 October 2002.
12.  On 17 October 2002 the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 November 2002.
13.  On 28 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and requested that the first-instance court to correct its judgment.
14.  On 8 July 2003 the first-instance court corrected its judgment as regards legal costs.
15.  On 23 December 2004 the Celje Higher Court delivered a judgment allowing the applicant’s appeal in part and amending the first-instance court’s judgment accordingly.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 January 2005.
16.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 7 December 2006 the court delivered a judgment. It partly upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and changed the second-instance court’s judgment accordingly. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 18 January 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Lysychansk.
5.  On 18 October 2000 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Lysychansk Court (Лисичанський міський суд Луганської області) against the Lysychansk Thermo-electric Plant (Лисичанська ТЕЦ), awarding him 13,270 hryvnyas (UAH) in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.
7.  On numerous occasions the bailiffs notified the applicant that they were unable to collect the full amount of the debt, citing insufficiency of the debtor’s funds and referring to the bankruptcy proceedings pending against it. They further explained that, since the State owned more than 25% of the debtor’s share capital, it was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of the State Property”.
8.  On 19 January 2005 the bailiffs took a decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings, having determined that the applicant had received the full amount of the judgment debt due to him.
9.  According to the applicant, fraction of the amount due to him remained outstanding.